As someone above has mentioned I would certiantly take the LSAT and see what your score is. Depending on your score you could re-evaluate the decision to apply to law school. Do you have an undergraduate degree? I'm guessing since your in construction the answer is NO but please correct me if im wrong. If not - then applying and graduating from undergrad school will be your first step.

"So, in high school I only had a 2.3 gpa but a 22 on the act. I been excepted to a state college last week and plan on pursuing a philosophy degree. Assuming I graduate with at least a 3.3 gpa and 160 LSAT"

Thanks everyone for your advice. You have given me a lot to think about. I agree that I shouldn't go to Cooley if I expect to transfer. The odds are stacked against me and I should be ok with spending the next 3 years there if I have to. I know people who do go their now and do like it. I also have heard some good things regardless of its reputation. I think I can be ok with getting my law degree there, and Ill probably go part time.

I guess I am leaning toward the unlikely idea of being able to transfer because I don't want to wait and take the lsat again: mostly because I don't want to have to start paying back my student loans from undergrad since I won't be enrolled in school (btw...I did get my BA, Nova Juris ).

I need to be realistic about this decision and I will continue to do my research, including contacting specific schools about their transfer process. Basically its not impossible to transfer but just really really hard. This was very helpful and Im going to consider alot of things before I make a decision. THANKS

For future reference: Nova Juris, there is way to be helpful in a respectful way. You are really condescending. Just something to think about.

wow, the person who barely passed undergrad and can't master the lsat with cooley as their best option giving me life advise. Thanks. That's swell.

Well I thought I would help you out by pointing out that you meant "advice" here (advise is a verb, idiot). Seeing as you clearly consider yourself the next Einstein (and thus, understand the difference between verbs and nouns), you already knew that. Good luck taking my order sir (with fries please).

nope. never did, just someone speed typing and not giving an A' because guess what lsat didn't care, bar doesn't care, and for law papers due or reports where they do count.........I care enough to check. I also don't kiss hookers on the mouth, doesn't mean I don't know how, they just aren't worth it, and neither are you.

I don't have to be Einstein (who by the who was a physist not an English Major and got friggin D's in school and didn't even comb his hair half the time.......) but anyone who can't get decent grades and lsat shouldn't go to lawschool. Never said I was smart, just trying to keep the scissors out of the hands of the helmet cases doing laps around the pool.

FutureLSStudent, if you're goal is to finish your law degree at a school other than Cooley then you'd probably be better off foregoing school in the fall and retake the LSAT in an attempt to score into the school of your choice.

As Roald pointed out, finishing in the top 10% is unlikely. In fact, you have a 90% chance of not finishing in the top 10%. The odds are stacked precariously against you. And in many ways, how well you do your first year is largely out of your control. The forced curve is brutal. Professors try to grade objectively (one can hope), but complete objectivity is impossible given the subjective nature of legal analysis. It's not as though every question has a clear right or wrong answer; there are many shades of gray in the law. A professor, for example, might mark you down because you chose to flesh out an argument that he thought was of little importance, even though reasonable minds could disagree as to its legal relevance.

If you move forward with your current plan, you're placing your fate mostly in the hands of your professors and fellow students. Law school is fiercely competitive. It's unlike college in almost every imaginable way. You could conceivably spend 18 hours a day in the library and still end up with a pedestrian gpa that's well outside of the top 10%.

In my humble opinion, you'd be better off devoting the time and energy that you ostensibly plan to exert in your studies this fall to retaking (and mastering) the LSAT.

so now you agree with me. Awsome. Buzz must have faded?

Are you enjoying the anonymity of cyberspace, young Nova? Good. The world desperately needs more pricks. Keep up the great work!

kettle meet stove

I think what you mean to say is "kettle meet pot." The point of my question was that I doubt you're as equally bellicose in your face-to-face interactions as you are here. I've giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it's entirely possible that you're a prick all day, every day.

In case you are a prick of the perpetual sort, let me give you some advice. I know you've probably watched your fair share of television and likely equate arrogance with intelligence. But in the real world, you have to be incredibly brilliant for co-workers to put up with someone that comes across as condescending as you do on this forum. And judging from your apparent deficiency in grammar and spelling skills, I highly doubt your intelligence rises to any workable definition of brilliance. I've read two posts wherein you wrote "academicly" instead of "academically." A single instance could be written off as a simple mistake. But two separate instances is a clear indication that you really don't know how to spell the word. So if you think you're going to get any play out of this "holier than thou" attitude you exhibit on this forum in the "real" world, you're sorely mistaken. You might even get your teeth punched down your throat.

With that said, given your constant usage of a LSAT score of 160 as your baseline for judging someone's intellectual abilities, I surmise that you scored 160 or above on your LSAT. If you did that's wonderful. But it certainly doesn't give you license to sling insults at others. Play nice, dude.

A. Proves you know nothing about what you consider the real world. Your closest thing it to is the tv show and whatever you were told by others. Everyone with a broken leg tries to shout swimming advice from the side of the pool.

B. Someone act different online? Wha??

C. Nice use of bellicose first sentence to try to do a subtle "See I'm not a moron like you said" bit. Very subtle, very clever. You can close wordsearch now.

Of course the LSAT isn't perfect, no test is. However, as you point out, the LSAT is a dependable predictor of academic aptitude (the exact thing it is designed to predict!). It stands to reason that in most cases a student with a high LSAT score will out perform those with lower scores. The LSAT is not supposed to approximate the law school experience, it just measures ability.

You're right. But what I took issue with was Nova Juris saying, "if you go, plan to graduate and plan to go part time since if your LSAT is under 160 you can't handle a 15 credit load and not be academicly [sic] dismissed." That statement is just plain ludicrous.

It's ludicrous to expect them to graduate, true. A third don't even make 2L. True.

prove it, frat boy.

I don't have to the ABA already has. Look it up for yourself if you even are smart enought to know what an ABA is.

Thanks everyone for your advice. You have given me a lot to think about. I agree that I shouldn't go to Cooley if I expect to transfer. The odds are stacked against me and I should be ok with spending the next 3 years there if I have to. I know people who do go their now and do like it. I also have heard some good things regardless of its reputation. I think I can be ok with getting my law degree there, and Ill probably go part time.

I guess I am leaning toward the unlikely idea of being able to transfer because I don't want to wait and take the lsat again: mostly because I don't want to have to start paying back my student loans from undergrad since I won't be enrolled in school (btw...I did get my BA, Nova Juris ).

I need to be realistic about this decision and I will continue to do my research, including contacting specific schools about their transfer process. Basically its not impossible to transfer but just really really hard. This was very helpful and Im going to consider alot of things before I make a decision. THANKS

For future reference: Nova Juris, there is way to be helpful in a respectful way. You are really condescending. Just something to think about.

wow, the person who barely passed undergrad and can't master the lsat with cooley as their best option giving me life advise. Thanks. That's swell.

You are such an elitist dic.k I hope you got a 170 LSAT to put down so many people so unabashedly. None of us can think as "properly" as you. Aren't you the dumbass who called 2/3s of the population morons a few posts back?

I hope the system really works and isn't a system based on complete crap. Look up the standard deviations for standardized tests- most have an accuracy of prediction of less than %1. And we all know how much you love the %1, wink wink.

less than a third will ever even get a BA. If being in the majority makes you right, then preschoolers and the new PhD since the areas with the largest population growths tend not to even complete what we would consider early elementary. When in doubt, ask the baby who dosn't like cash back I guess. She must be our new overlord.

As the comment that set you off, how is it "elitest" to say that those who are not educated are not entitled to equal protection as the rest of the general population? If anything taking away their rights is elitest since the ones who benefit are the upperclass who are stealing from the disproportionately lower class who are being fed lies to give them false hope and put them into debt for the rest of their lives. I am saying to allow people legal protection, you are against it and yet I am the elitest. huh.

Numbers don't lie you can't deny the math, solicitus. There is no debate over whether the %1 exists, just what should be done. Like global warming, there is no debate over whether is is happening or not- its quantifiable- you cannot deny the math. The debate lies with why is it happening.

As to the amazingly cold hearted lack of empathy or the frighting inability to see anything for someone else's perspective, well we can leave that for later.

Ficken thoughtless "value" based thinking. Please use what's tangible, i.e. math, not whether you think the corporate spending is bad? Its just bad, mmmkay. What some single fool did for lunch one day has nothing, nothing at all to do with a macro issue like this.

how is there any values in it? If anything you are trying to project your values into it. You refuse to see the numbers due to what you want to see hear and feel. You always tell others not to think based on feelings but that is all you seem able to do based on your values.

What is happening today, correct, all the food stamps and welfare and not paying taxes still going on this very moment, and the next, and the next.....

sorry to confuse you with more than one idea at a time, some people choke when they are given more than they can chew.

Tell me, if you can, how there is no bailouts for the poor? How them not paying taxes (or virtually none for the ones that do) and getting free money, free rent, free food, free medical, bankruptcy, and stimulus checks, unemployment extensions, etc does not add up to bailout?

You want to use your emotions and values, but try not to. Try to explain how it is not a bailout? You can't.